Bush grants permanent legal immunity to US corporations looting Iraqi oil

World Socialist Web Site

An extraordinary Presidential Executive Order, signed into law by President Bush on May 22 but kept out of the pages of the US media, further underscores the real motivations behind the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Ostensibly drawn up in order to protect Iraq’s oil wealth, Executive Order (EO) 13303, “Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest”, provides unlimited authority for US corporations to loot Iraqi oil and grants them permanent immunity from any legal actions over the consequences.

EO 13303 begins with a declaration that the possibility of future legal claims on Iraq’s oil wealth constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” It goes on to state that “any ... judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void” with regard to the Development Fund for Iraq, as well as for any commercial operation conducted by US corporations involved in the Iraqi oil industry. -

Banish bush From Texas Too

I don't know what else to say.

From the article:

(snip)Condemning it as a “blank check for corporate anarchy”, Tom Devine, legal director for the non-profit legal firm, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), issued a damning assessment of Bush’s EO on July 18. “In terms of legal liability,” Divine’s report began, “the Executive Order cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law.”

Devine noted that section 1(b) of the EO protects “all corporate activities with roots or any connection to Iraqi oil covers everything from extraction through transportation, advertising, manufacture, customer service, corporate records and payment of taxes. It covers compliance with contractual obligations involving Iraqi oil that industry enters with the US government in post-war Iraq. The scope can be further expanded to virtually all oil-related commerce, by blending Iraqi oil with domestic supplies for any given commercial transaction.”

The EO means that American oil companies operating in Iraq are now completely immune from legal accountability. If they carry out environmental destruction, oil spills or labour rights violations, no one affected will have any legal recourse. In addition, the EO eliminates the potential for any future Iraqi government to sue US oil companies for compensation and damages. The GAP report describes it as “a licence for corporations to loot Iraq and its citizens”.
(snip/...)

What word describes this, other than EVIL?

This is old news, not LBN. Plus, I hardly think 'The World Socialist Web Site' counts as a valid news source. The word 'looting' in the headline was a dead giveaway. (I do happen to think it's 'looting,' but the word itself is hardly 'fair and balanced.')

I like your thinking!

I get my news analysis from them all the time. They are highly respected - just not mainstream.

By the way, neither Fox nor Drudge are valid, in my opinion.

I'm just saying that we should stay away from posting anything in LBN that has a clearly biased headline--right or left. The fact that the word 'looting' appears in the headline is a clear indication of bias, however true.

Here is a hint. All news headlines and the stories that come with them from all news sevices are biased.

Don

truth? I'm confused. That sounds like GOP/Bush Crime Family mentality.

The headline is a clear demonstration of BFEE style--slipping in heavily tilted words in an ostensibly newsworthy headline.

Should we allow posts from NewsMax or WorldNetDaily? How about Rense.com? How about Debka? For that matter, how about Der Stürmer? Remember, I'm talking about LBN, not the other forums. Post this in GD to your heart's content.

And you're overlooking my other point: this story is OLD NEWS. It has been posted here several times over the last couple of months. By that fact alone, it violates LBN rules.

I don't care if the Mods leave this up or not, it just pisses me off when LBN (which is an otherwise valuable breaking-news 'blog) is polluted with stuff that contravenes the rules.

Sorry. End-of-rant. I'll lighten up now.

You're in danger of being called a "thread Nazi" as I was for objecting to old news showing up on LBN. The defense was that maybe it was old news, but CNN had just posted a transcript and Google picked up on that, hence it qualified as LBN.
I countered with "can I post week-old news in LBN when the Sunday papers do their week-in-review"? New story/source and all?
No reply...

Just giving you heads-up that you may be a nazi!

:-)

There. I said it. I feel better now. It's not up to me to tell people how to post. Post away, my friends. Post away.

I apologize to one and all. The funny thing is, I got laid this weekend and should be feeling waaaay relaxed.

wsws.org is a great site - I'm not a socialist, but they have excellent articles and reporting. The Wall Street Jounral editorial page is a joke and a half, but it's reporting is excellent too.

The majority of his complaint was the fact it came from wsws.org, which is just as legitimate as the WSJ.

was a scare? Why not 'Loot'?

I was agreeing with FlashHarry that this is NOT LBN. I also agree with you that whether CBS or Wobblies, reporters and headline writers often misrepresent the facts.
That said, after being called a 'thread nazi', I decided to leave it to the Mods to enforce DU rules if they want to. If they miss 'em, they miss 'em.

This was signed into law 20 days ago, and the article was published today. I am honestly am not trying to flame you in any way. And I think I do remember seeing a thread or two on this story before on LBN. But through either my own ignorance, my own inability to put two and two together, or perhaps even bacuse of a biased headline by those news sevices providing the story, I just did not understand the importance of those threads. Didn't even click on them. Now, this one on the other hand did catch my eye. Maybe for me it took the truthfulness of this headline to do the job? I apoligize if it seemed that I was attacking you, but for some of us (like me) it takes a slap upside my head with a headline like this before I catch on some times. Take care.

Don

Just because a headline says something we don't like, does that mean it is biased?

The WSWS is excellent.

KC

FOX is watching you!

What makes WSWS "invalid"?

Looting is looting--what other word should be used?

All headlines are concocted to give some sort of effect, even when they are inocuous. They have to be: they are conveying the gist of a story in as few words as possible and they also want to grab the reader's attention in some way.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-20013.pdf


The order applies to lots and lots of reports that touch on touchy issues involving US paid mercenary armies operating offshore etc.

This is cover action for corporate welfare recipients. Burma (gas pipelines), Bosnia, Kosovo (CSC Dyncorp private police - child slavers)... Colombia (CSC Dyncorp peasant poisonings) Afghan reconstruction (Brown Root etc..) I.E. It relates to the sort of overseas pork that Halliburton revels in.

This order seems to remind everyone involved in preparing these reports - if they were not already aware - to keep everything interesting secret. The president is organising the redacters.

The words... "Withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive," covers just about everything I would imagine...

I consider them to be much more reliable than Fox and other Murdoch media. People post from Fox News al the time on this forum and no one questions them.

Gets my vote.

the only way a democrat can reverse an executive order is to already have gotten your vote and been elected president.

So VOTE first, then cross your fingers.

scary and unamerican.

so first the executive branch writes legislation (a la Asscrak with PATRIOT2), now the executive puts limitations on the functioning of the judicial?
Remember, folks, there's a very old word for this... in latin, the word for an executive official that has too much power is 'dictator'.

and other US Corporations

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-20013.pdf

...This is an ILLEGAL order by the resident of the US. It's not his first and won't be his last.

thanks for posting this. it's was really interesting, and had useful analysis.

instead of attacking the newssource, perhaps it would be better to discuss the facts and the Executive Order that this story highlights. The story will either stand or fall based on the facts and reasoning that it cites and uses or doesn't use. To me, it looks pretty solidly based.

Perhaps one of those who are so opposed to the WSWS can point out where the facts are in error or where facts are left out. Or, perhaps they can show where the logic is faulty.

thanks again for posting it.